On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
The electoral vote may be on state majority voting, but there is no law to state that the elected voter has any obligation to follow voting tendencies of the state. Nothing holds them accountable to vote in any direction, just as the electorate who refused to vote in 2000. Nothing forces him to vote any way.
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
The electoral vote may be on state majority voting, but there is no law to state that the elected voter has any obligation to follow voting tendencies of the state. Nothing holds them accountable to vote in any direction, just as the electorate who refused to vote in 2000. Nothing forces him to vote any way.
True, but they have followed the popular votes of their states (or the proportional votes of their states), because the laws of the states do determine how the electors are appointed. (basically you pick people as electors only after the election).
2000 was more complicated because the popular vote in one state was in contention.
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
the electoral college can vote for either candidate, regardless of what party won the state.
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
the electoral college can vote for either candidate, regardless of what party won the state.
And the electoral college consists of people specifically appointed for Only one thing. they are picked because their "personal interest" would have them voting for a Republican or Democrat or whoever won the state. Its like having a jury that was purely selected by the prosecution OR defense (rather than both), who was allowed to ask them if they thought the defendant was guilty or not.
the electoral college can vote for either candidate if they want to, but they generally don't, and in fact 24 states have laws prohibiting them from voting for a candidate that did not win the popular vote in their state. furthermore, in all of history the electoral college deviating from the norm has never affected the final outcome of a vote.
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
The electoral vote is not based on the electoral college's personal interests, it is based on the popular vote in the states.
Quite honestly though, anyone who is an American, and loves America, and knows what America is, what it stands for, and on what terms it was founded and established (and recognized).... needs to vote for Ron Paul. He's the only president that is actually capable of making a change. Everyone else has too many big corporations running them, that even if they add into their speeches that they are going to adopt more Ron Paul stuff, they still wouldn't implement any of them once their term started. None of the other candidates have the power to make any change, and most of the other candidates are too stupid to even know what changes need to be made. Most are targeting their plans at specific people, or specific issues, and pretty much ignore the majority of the problems. Ron Paul, if you listened to any of the presidential debates for the past like 12 years, is the only person who discusses a plan that will actually bring upon change. He explains what problems exist, and how he aims to fix them. He believes in the constitution, which under the Patriot Act is null and void at any time the president of the United States wishes to make it so (hence why Obama and the executive branch can so easily do things such as waging war without even asking the legislative branch for permission).
I don't even understand why some people look at the other candidates as a possible president. All of them are completely incompetent.
Do you mean "willing" to make a change or "capable". Remember the President is only one of 3 branches, Congress is the most powerful branch, and If Ron Paul became President he probably wouldn't be able to do Anything is his platform (well maybe a little), because he needs Congress to do it.
Just like there is almost no way a Cain Presidency would get a simple 9-9-9 tax code.
The electoral vote may be on state majority voting, but there is no law to state that the elected voter has any obligation to follow voting tendencies of the state. Nothing holds them accountable to vote in any direction, just as the electorate who refused to vote in 2000. Nothing forces him to vote any way.
True, but they have followed the popular votes of their states (or the proportional votes of their states), because the laws of the states do determine how the electors are appointed. (basically you pick people as electors only after the election).
2000 was more complicated because the popular vote in one state was in contention.
I know it was one state, I live in Palm Beach County=P
I just didn't want false information being stated was all. I think 99% or something ridiculously high like that of electorate votes have been aligned with popular vote in the past.
@ Krikkitone Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is a fucking joke. The middle class would be paying a lot more money to the government but the richer class would pay a lot less. I rather have Ron Paul's 0-0-0 tax plan.
@ilovelings There's been poles down when Obama goes head to head with Paul and he's won most of them. If I were Obama i'd be scared if Paul ran against me because his opponent stays consistent while he flip flops on a lot of issues.
On November 18 2011 07:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @ Krikkitone Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is a fucking joke. The middle class would be paying a lot more money to the government but the richer class would pay a lot less. I rather have Ron Paul's 0-0-0 tax plan.
@ilovelings There's been poles down when Obama goes head to head with Paul and he's won most of them. If I were Obama i'd be scared if Paul ran against me because his opponent stays consistent while he flip flops on a lot of issues.
I agree that 9-9-9 would cause the middle class to pay more money, I was making the point that even if Cain got elected that would not mean he would give us the 9-9-9 tax plan he wants to because he Can't do it. Only Congress can do it (he can make it easier by not vetoing it) Same thing for Ron Paul's plans.. he Can't just eliminate these various departments or cut their budgets, only Congress can do that. I would probably bet on Ron Paul being able to accomplish more of what he wants to than Cain, because Ron Paul is used to working with Congress.. but just because the President wants it doesn't make it so.
The President is about as powerful as ~16 senators or ~70 house representatives (through the veto power). But he still has to bargain to get what he wants (unless it is going to war.. he can apparently do that even if it is unconstitutional.)
On November 18 2011 02:26 ilovelings wrote: Anyways, if this polarization continues, Obama wins. The fragmentation it produces clearly benefit Obama.
I don't think so. Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Obama and he is the only one that can beat Obama. Ron Paul has been right for 30 years, has predicted the crisis and is not bought and paid for by the bankers and has never lied, unlike Obama.
On November 18 2011 02:26 ilovelings wrote: Anyways, if this polarization continues, Obama wins. The fragmentation it produces clearly benefit Obama.
I don't think so. Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Obama and he is the only one that can beat Obama. Ron Paul has been right for 30 years, has predicted the crisis and is not bought and paid for by the bankers and has never lied, unlike Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoq99dSLEeQ&feature=related
That is one of the few promises Ron Paul could probably actually carry out (undeploying troops, closing foreign military bases) if he became President. The only thing tying him back would be treaties that the US has signed where it is commited to keeping troops in a country (probably not nearly as many as we have).
On November 19 2011 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Newt is now tied with Romney in New Hampshire according to TPM. The Romney campaign staff has to be ticked off about all these new near front runners.
@reyt That's interesting. I've watching what sort of articles covered after the last election where Gingerich was suddenly getting the anti-Romney support. And slowly, but surely more articles on growing on Ron Paul's recent polling successes. For awhile only Digital Journal and a couple others were reporting them.
I don't know. I'm so ideologically opposed to much of what Ron Paul says and if he were in Canada, I'd never, ever vote for him. However, given the amount institutionalized corruption that makes up American politics, I think I'll finally start cheering for him. I think there is a role for big government, but I don't know if any other candidate is consistent enough to try to tackle corporate influence on politics. It might be that Ron Paul needs to be in for a few years to clean a few things out and then have another president come in to institute new programs with a clean slate.
I look at Obama trying to tack on a form of universal healthcare and it seems like a mess. But perhaps if Ron Paul can tear down the current system, by moving healthcare down to the state level, then perhaps something better can be created from the ground up. Actually, now that I think about it, although Canada has universal healthcare, it's implemented at the provincial level, with some common standards and basic coverage so he's not entirely offbase. In fact, Harper often argues for the province's rights to implement healthcare as they see fit as long is it follows the Canada Health Act.
He still is a long shot candidate, but then again I cheered for Biden before Obama the last election, so whatever. The fact that fox news is actually talking acknowledging him and the media blackout is good step.
Edit What I do know Perry's the tough talking cowboy politician that I sincerely dislike, Cain's a joke and mired in scandals, Gingerich smells corrupt as anything in addition to being an opportunistic book peddler, Romney feels like our Mulroney too-slick-car salesman, while Bachmann and Santorum are far too shrill/ ridiculous. And I don't know what to make of Huntsman. In short, I don't like anyone in the Republican camp, but Paul might be able to fix a couple problems and someone will have to re-correct afterward from his over-correction. (He hasn't talked about it, but he used to want to get rid of the FBI.)
On November 18 2011 02:26 ilovelings wrote: Anyways, if this polarization continues, Obama wins. The fragmentation it produces clearly benefit Obama.
I don't think so. Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Obama and he is the only one that can beat Obama. Ron Paul has been right for 30 years, has predicted the crisis and is not bought and paid for by the bankers and has never lied, unlike Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoq99dSLEeQ&feature=related
Obama beats all the GOP right now. Romney is closest and Paul is second in a majority of h2h polls. However, these polls are just as bad as online polls. The telephone polls reach LAN lines only, which leaves out pretty much everyone of youth.
I do think Paul would destroy Obama though. He would receive the youth vote and the middle. Would most likely be a landslide.
On November 18 2011 02:26 ilovelings wrote: Anyways, if this polarization continues, Obama wins. The fragmentation it produces clearly benefit Obama.
I don't think so. Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Obama and he is the only one that can beat Obama. Ron Paul has been right for 30 years, has predicted the crisis and is not bought and paid for by the bankers and has never lied, unlike Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoq99dSLEeQ&feature=related
Obama beats all the GOP right now. Romney is closest and Paul is second in a majority of h2h polls. However, these polls are just as bad as online polls. The telephone polls reach LAN lines only, which leaves out pretty much everyone of youth.
I do think Paul would destroy Obama though. He would receive the youth vote and the middle. Would most likely be a landslide.
The "youth" you speak of don't show up to the polls.
In the true sense of the word youth, they aren't even allowed to vote, though that's just semantics.
EPT
